[Open-access] [open-science] Open Science Anthology published

[Heather Morrison]

for Bjoern and Graham:

No license can prevent misquotes, granted. Two things that are different about CC licenses permitting derivatives:

1. Proactive encouragement of creation of derivatives (otherwise why use these licenses?). If these licenses have any effect at all, they will result in the creation of more derivatives. It seems logical that this will increase the likelihood of both positive and negative derivatives; this means greater potential for misquotes.

2. If I do not license my work in a way that explicitly permits downstream derivatives and someone misquotes me, it is clearly their fault. However, if I have explicitly permitted derivatives, an argument can be made that subsequent misquotes are to some extent my fault.

For this reason, I argue that if scholars perceive greater risks than potential benefits from allowing derivatives, they should not be required to use CC derivative licenses.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
613-562-5800 ext. 7634
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca<mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>


On 2014-01-27, at 3:44 PM, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com<mailto:b.brembs at gmail.com>>
 wrote:

On Monday, January 27, 2014, 7:55:36 PM, you wrote:

Brembs, B. on "Mike Taylor words with Heather Morrison's
good manners": "This is a perfect example of why we should
NOT have CC-BY. It's not working!"

I have no idea in what way this is different from all the misquoting of TA, copyrighted material that goes on all the time, i.e., why this would get worse with CC-BY as opposed to NC or ND? Do ND licenses prevent quoting? That would make them completely useless as scholarly licenses. Conversely, if you allow quoting, you allow misquoting. Surely, your aim is not to prevent quoting?

Can you explain how one license prevents misquoting (or quote-mining), compared to another license? Specifically, if I had licensed my email ND, would you be in violation of said license?
If so, if my ND licensed work ever gets misquoted or otherwise misrepresented, by accident or intent, do I get to sue the person quoting or citing me?

Then I would really consider licensing my most difficult to understand work ND and wait for the money to flow :-)

Confusedly,

Bjoern




--
Björn Brembs
---------------------------------------------
http://brembs.net
Neurogenetics
Universität Regensburg
Germany


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140127/62be353b/attachment-0002.html>